Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072410C070403
Original file (2002072410C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 19 September 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002072410


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Mr. Joseph A. Adriance Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. JoAnn H. Langston Chairperson
Ms. Melinda M. Darby Member
Mr. Ronald E. Blakely Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.


2. The applicant requests, in effect, that that his major (MAJ) date of rank (DOR) be corrected.

3. The applicant states, in effect, that his captain (CPT) DOR rank was 26 May 1993, which made his promotion eligibility date (PED) to MAJ 25 May 2000, based on the 7 year maximum years in grade (MYIG) requirement for promotion to MAJ. He claims that the promotion board that selected him for promotion to MAJ convened in March and recessed in April of 2000, which was well in advance of his PED to MAJ of 25 May 2000.

4. The applicant’s military records show that he is currently serving on active duty in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position at the Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri. It also confirms that he was promoted to the rank of CPT on 26 May 1993, which established his PED for MAJ as 25 May 2000, based on his having attained the 7 years MYIG requirement established by law.

5. The applicant was selected for promotion to MAJ by the 2000 Reserve Component (RC) MAJ promotion selection board that was approved on
19 July 2000.

6. A promotion memorandum pertaining to the applicant, dated 10 August 2000, published by the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), St. Louis, Missouri, authorized his promotion to the rank of MAJ, effective 19 July 2000, which was also the date established as his DOR.

7. In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from PERSCOM, St. Louis, dated 9 July 2002. In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 19 July 2000, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied.

8. On 23 July 2002, the applicant was provided a copy of the PERSCOM advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond. To date, he has failed to reply.

9. Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) prescribes policy and procedures used for selecting and promoting commissioned officers of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and of commissioned and warrant officers (WO) of the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).

10. Chapter 2, section III (Board Consideration), states that boards will convene each year and will consider officers on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) for promotion to captain through lieutenant colonel without regard to vacancies in the next higher grade. It also states, in pertinent part, that the first consideration for promotion will occur well in advance of the date the officer will complete the TIG requirements in table 2-1 or table 2-3, as appropriate. Table 2-1 of this regulation outlines the service requirements for promotion and indicates that the MYIG requirement for promotion to MAJ is 7 years.

11. Chapter 4, section III (Dates of Promotion) does state that the effective date of promotion for commissioned officers may not precede the date on which the promotion memorandum is issued, and the promotion memorandum will not be issued prior to promotion board results being approved and/or confirmed by the Senate (if required). In addition, Title 10 of the United States Code, section 12203 (10 USC 12203) establishes, in effect, that RC officers on a promotion list will be promoted when the report of the selection board is approved by the President. Therefore, under this provision of the law, the promotion effective date is the date the list is signed by the President. It is also codified in the law that, in effect, if a RC officer’s promotion is adjusted to reflect a date earlier than the actual effective date of promotion, for example a DOR adjustment based on MYIG, this does not entitle him to additional pay or allowances.

12. 10 USC 14304 provides the legal authority for eligibility for consideration for promotion based on MYIG provisions of the law. Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer will complete those years of service. This provision of the law establishes the MYIG for CPT going to MAJ as 7 years. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and who is placed on an approved promotion list shall be promoted, without regard to the existence of a vacancy, on the date on which the officer completes the MYIG specified in this law.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Board notes and agrees with the comments contained in the PERSCOM advisory opinion which state that the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list. However, it does not find this is the determinate operative law pertaining to DOR adjustments, as in this case.

2. In the opinion of the Board, although the effective date of a USAR officer’s promotion cannot be prior to the approval date of the Board, this does not preclude a change to the applicant’s DOR in the interest of equity, based on MYIG provisions of the law, in order to allow him to remain competitive with his peers.

3. By law and regulation, officers will be placed in a promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer will complete those years of service.

4. The
Board finds a legal basis to support adjusting the applicant’s DOR and PED to the next higher grade, and it concludes that taking this action at this time would be appropriate. However, the law mandates that his promotion effective date can not be prior to the date the promotion list was approved by the President, as indicated in the PERSCOM advisory opinion. Therefore, the Board concludes there should be no change to the applicant’s promotion effective date, and that he is not entitled to any back pay and allowances as a result of the Board’s recommended change to his DOR.

5. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the DOR to MAJ of the individual concerned is 25 May 2000.

BOARD VOTE
:

__JHL__ __MDM__ ___REB__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION





                  ___JoAnn H. Langston _
                  CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2002072410
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED 2002/09/19
TYPE OF DISCHARGE N/A
DATE OF DISCHARGE N/A
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY N/A
DISCHARGE REASON N/A
BOARD DECISION GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 21 102.0700
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.



Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072145C070403

    Original file (2002072145C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 3 January 2000, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068793C070402

    Original file (2002068793C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In effect, PERSCOM promotion officials opined that because the ROPMA prohibits the promotion of an officer prior to the approval of the list, and since the applicant’s promotion list was not approved by the President until 31 August 1998, which was the date established as his DOR, his request should be denied. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076239C070215

    Original file (2002076239C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that his captain (CPT) DOR rank was 1 May 1992, which made his promotion eligibility date (PED) to MAJ 30 April 1999, based on the 7 year maximum years in grade (MYIG) requirement for promotion to MAJ. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is recommended for promotion to the next higher grade by a selection board the first time they are considered for promotion and who is placed on an approved promotion list shall be promoted, without regard...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056548C070420

    Original file (2001056548C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer will complete those years of service. This conclusion is based on the legal provisions established...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090373C070212

    Original file (2003090373C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is recommended for promotion, the promotion may be effective on or before the date on which the officer will complete those years of service. Paragraph (b) states, in effect, that a RC officer who is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076996C070215

    Original file (2002076996C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    She also states that her captain (CPT) DOR was 23 May 1995, which established her Promotion Eligibility Date (PED) to MAJ as 22 May 2002 under maximum years in grade (MYIG) provisions of the law. Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title, far enough in advance of completing the MYIG so that, if the officer is...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065432C070421

    Original file (2001065432C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Officials at the ARPERSCOM opined that the applicant had been considered for the first time by the 1999 Reserve Components (RC) Major Promotion Selection Board based on his DOR to CPT in 1991 and under current policies, he should have his DOR adjusted to the date he occupied a position requiring the rank of MAJ, since he was not eligible for consideration by a Reserve Component Selection Board when he reached his MYIG. Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075357C070403

    Original file (2002075357C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    This memorandum authorized the applicant’s promotion to MAJ and established her DOR as 27 January 2000. As a result, her record was referred to a STAB and she was considered and selected for promotion to MAJ under the criteria established for the 1998 promotion board. However, during the processing of this case, these same promotion officials determined that the 31 August 1998 date was in error, and that the applicant’s promotion date to MAJ should have actually been established as 30...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087418C070212

    Original file (2003087418C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that he was selected for promotion to the rank of major by a Department of the Army Standby Advisory Board (STAB) and was informed that his DOR would be 25 June 2000. He further states that when he inquired about his DOR, USAR officials stated that they could not change it because he was a member of the NJARNG. Paragraph (a) states, in pertinent part, that officers shall be placed in the promotion zone and shall be considered for promotion to the next higher grade by a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059639C070421

    Original file (2001059639C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    She claims that at the time the promotion board convened she was serving in an authorized MAJ position and her promotion order should have reflected a DOR of 1 July 1997, which under the law was her PED. It also indicated that the applicant’s promotion effective date should have been established as 11 November 1997, the date she was assigned to an authorized MAJ position. In addition, the Board concurs with the ARPERSCOM opinion that her promotion effective date should have been 11...